What about her comment about, "she has never been proud of America during most of her adult life"??

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html

I think this is the start of what Bill did to hillary and now Mrs. O will do the same for Obama and bring him down with this comment.

I am an American by choice and regardless of what party you belong to, this country has done so much for its citizens and for the world. I would like to ask her, name one country that is better than America?

I still say Oprah would make a better "First Lady" for a potential Pres. Obama than Michelle Obama would.

Given the semi-official nature of the position, it's time that there be more of a selection process than marriage.

Would we not vote for a presidential candidate who was spouseless? Would we not vote for a candidate who had a spouse completely ill suited towards the 'First Lady' function?

Clearly, Hillary's spouse would be a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen as 'first spouse' (ignoring all past performances, just look to his behavior recently on the campaign trail).

As far as the remaining candidates go, I still would favor as 'First Lady', Oprah (rather than Michelle) for Obama so that The Obama could have an equally vivacious and adored 'First Lady'. Martha Stewart (rather than Chelsea) would be the logical choice for Hillary, she'd need someone efficient, yet even scarier than herself, and few fit the bill better than Martha. As far as McCain goes, Sarah Michelle Gellar (rather than Cindy) would be perfect, her film career is in a bit of a lull, she's young and would help people forget how old McCain is, and if there's ever a vampire or zombie attack, she has the experience (as Buffy) to handle the situation (plus, I hear she's a closet conservative).

"Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands...that...we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken....I am married to the only person in this race who can heal this nation....[Barack] is going to demand that you shed your cynicism.... Barack will never let you go back to your lives as usual!"

The foreign policy debate floor will be wiped by McCain, using Obama's broad brush of naivety. First debate: McCain offers Obama a position in his administration so he can gain some experience when Obama runs again in 2016.

My economic stimulus package is to put a MacBook Air into the hands of every voter. And a Redbud tree in every yard. A squirrel in every pot.

Vote for me in 2008 -- Your ground beef taint ever gonna be tainted.

(I'm Meade and I approve this message although I can't say I'm all that crazy about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.)

"Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands...that...we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken....I am married to the only person in this race who can heal this nation....[Barack] is going to demand that you shed your cynicism.... Barack will never let you go back to your lives as usual!"

I'm afraid. The religious and fanantic overtones of the Obama campaign scares the crap out of me. Sorry Michelle. You can demand any freaking thing you want, but I WILL NEVER shed my cynicism. If I wanted to be preached at about my soul, I would go to church. I don't want to be healed.

My gut reaction to Michelle Obama is that she is a closet racist and overt socialist. My actual reaction to someone like her, were I to be in the same room would be STFU.

Additionally, IF Obama does become President, I predict 4 years of walking on egg shells because every legitimate criticism of him will be turned into charges of racism. I'm not a racist now, but if this freak show continues, I might reconsider my stance on that.

titusguy, I think that is what Michelle was saying in that second photo above: "Next time I get ahold of that titus rascal, I'm gonna stifle and squish his tiny little head just like this until he smothers and squeals like a stuck pig."

I can respect a decision to vote for a suboptimal candidate, or even a genuinely loathsome candidate, for that matter, at least to the extent that it is a vote cast in a two-horse race against a candidate perceived as being even worse. The French left, for example, collectively acted like adults in the second round of the 2002 Presidential election in that country, recognizing the overriding importance of crushing Jean-Marie Le Pen, came out and overwhelmingly supported Jacques Chirac. Likewise, in 2004, even those liberals who loathed John Kerry, and who might otherwise have been tempted to support Ralph Nader, chose to act like grown-ups and cast a vote for the lesser of two evils. Following McCain's sewing up of the nomination, in anticipation of this year's election, I have urged those conservatives hostile to John McCain to realize what is at stake, to realize that every election involves a choice between the greater and the lesser evil. And, truth be told, if through some quirk of fate it had come to pass that Obama's last remaining opponent were not Hillary but Joe Biden, I would not only vote for Barack Obama, but give him money, wear the t-shirt, and walk precincts for him.

I frankly find it hard to comprehend how Clinton (or virtually anyone else, Biden being a special case) could possibly meet the threshold for being sufficiently bad to be worse than Obama, who I find the most allergenic politician I've ever encountered. But I can understand and respect picking whoever is perceived as the lesser evil, even when (as with Kerry) I find myself struggling to see how the conclusion as to which evil is greater is reached.

To whatever extent your vote is not about a rejection of Clinton, I respectfully note my strenuous dissent, for whatever little that's worth, and for obvious reasons will leave it at that. I see no reason to antagonize a gracious host, so absent compelling reason, I will curtail further comments here on Obama's candidacy until the nomination is settled one way or another.

A middle aged socialist is not smart. At 20 it's excusable. At 40 plus it is evidence of the inability to either understand and/or come to grips with human nature. Or worse: understanding human nature, an obsessive need to overthrow it. Okay, maybe he is smart in the way a subversive intelligence can be smart, but destructive. We need that in a president? Of course, he masks it well. I'd say Michelle is his id. She gives the game away.

Ann Althouse said... ricpic, I don't see it that way at all. Obama is probably the smartest and most thoughtful of the candidates.

Aside from that, I think he is the most realistic. He has his platform and all that, but he knows that he will only be able to accomplish a small portion of it. I beleive he will be able to work with the Legislature in a bi-partisan manner and build bridges. People criticize his liberalism, but very few criticize him personally.

Hillary, on the other hand will burn bridges and use a scorched earth policy to try to push her platform; if past history is any indication. And no one really likes her.

Thanks for the great pics. My son is in the red sweater vest and I am the guy in the green sweater right beneath her hand. I have forwarded your photos to friends and family. I hope you don't expect royalty checks!

Concerning "our first affirmative action first family" post let me say please name a past first couple that have better represents the hope for meritocracy in the United States? (Please, please, please do not say George W. Bush!)

Thanks for the great pics. My son is in the red sweater vest and I am the guy in the green sweater right beneath her hand. I have forwarded your photos to friends and family. I hope you don't expect royalty checks!

Concerning "our first affirmative action first family" post let me say please name a past first couple that have better represents the hope for meritocracy in the United States? (Please, do not say George W. Bush.)

"I wrote not long ago that Michelle Obama is a loose cannon, and I fear that her latest is not her last. I would have thought that two Ivy-League degrees, a joint income of about a million dollars, exclusive private schools for the kids, and a nice home in the suburbs were not so bad and might suggest that hope had made a comeback well before Barack's presidential run."

Nothing America has done in Michelle Obama’s adult life, which at 44 goes back 26 years to 1982, has made her proud of her country? Nothing? Not winning the Cold War? Not our regular and orderly transitions of power based on the rule of law? Not the fact that we feed and defend the world, not that we lead in science and technology research, not that we elected the first black president in 1992…nothing? Not the fact that she and her husband were able to go to Ivy League schools before embarking on extremely lucrative careers? Not the fact that we help out in disasters wherever they strike in the world? Nothing has made Michelle Obama proud of her country in her entire adult life?

"There's so much to comment on regarding that statement. Just two brief points;

1. Mrs. Obama is in her mid-forties. That means her adult life has spanned from about 1985 to the present. She's found nothing in all that time to make her proud of her country? Not the fact that it won the Cold War and liberated tens of millions from totalitarian rule? What about sending billions to ease the plight of millions of AIDS sufferers in Africa? What about the nation's selflessness in stopping genocide in the Balkans when it had no immediate security interest in the region? What about our ability to produce hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will risk life and limb to liberate two countries from despotic regimes right out of the Dark Ages? Doesn't the Herculean Tsunami Relief effort generate a flicker of national pride?

Of course, the list of things to make the ordinary person proud of this country is interminable. But,then, the Obamas are not ordinary. Clearly, they're extraordinary .Krauthammer's right. The self-referential does tend to become tiresome. But Mrs. Obama's statement transcends the self-referential and shades into the self-reverential.

2. The wife of a candidate who refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin, regularly slouches insouciantly during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner and tepidly comments that posters of Che Guevara and the Communist Cuban flag hanging at his campaign offices are "inappropriate" might want to consider whether her remarks might feed a rather unappealing narrative regarding the degree of the Senator's, um, patriotic fervor."

Lee: "The word "meritocracy" is now also often used to describe a type of society where wealth, position, and social status are in part assigned through competition or demonstrated talent and competence"

Meritocracy is the comple and utter opposite of the socialist proposals from the Left. This includes Hillary and to a lesser extent Obama who wants to "level" the field and make us get on our knees and give and give and give to those who take and take.

"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another — that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation"

Rachel Lucas says it best. "I can’t think of anything more idiotic than measuring the greatness of America by her poorest and weakest. What, we’re only as great as the meth-head crack-whore welfare sows in trailer parks and housing projects? Only as great as that homeless guy downtown who eats his boogers and spends all his panhandlin’ proceeds on hooch? Oh hell no. No, no, no."

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

The religious and fanantic overtones of the Obama campaign scares the crap out of me.

Did you also vote against Bush in 2000 when his campaign had a 'crusade' overtone to it? Just wondering, or is it only religious Democrats who scare you?

l.e.lee:

No, I can't think of a better first couple. People always talk about JFK and Jackie, but we now know that he was a serial philanderer. Franklin Roosevelt only had one mistress, but with Eleanor they made a great first couple if your standard is getting things done.

Betty Ford really did do some things that took a lot of guts and changed the world for the better. Until her, first ladies were supposed to be perfect (well, other than perhaps the insufferable and morose Mary Todd Lincoln who made her husband's job just that much more difficult.) But Betty Ford showed that it's OK for the first lady to be a human being (in stark contrast to Jackie Kennedy who suffered in silence at her husband's infidelity and Pat Nixon who wore lots of makeup so the bruises she received from her husband's beatings wouldn't be visible.)

And to be honest, while I never cared much for President Ford, I would have to say that together they made a great first couple (he was always devoted to her.)

The first lady I really never liked was Barbara Bush. That's even before her cruel comment about Katrina victims and stadium seats a couple of years ago, even before that something about her really rubbed me the wrong way.

"“For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is making a comeback.”

Outrageous! Not "classy", not "attractive". That statement is narcissistic, bitter and offensive to those of us who actually LIKE America and applaud the many good things that have occurred here--"hopeful" things--in the recent past.

Not only does MO display disdain for this country, she exhibits self-absorption in the extreme; only HER husband offers "hope"??? And a lack of awareness of the massive amount of opportunity (hope?) this country has offered HER.

What I heard in Michele Obama's speech today is that we need to make sure everyone, especially our young, are given the opportunity, especially through education, to fully participate and be productive in America.

As a small biz owner who works seven days a week I find that message to be right on target.

My parents cast their votes absentee for Hilary. They spend their winters in Arizona.

They think Hilary will win Wisconsin tomorrow.

I have been watching some of the coverage of the campaign and it seems that both Hilary and Obama have only been in Milwaukee and Madison. Have they been anywhere else in the state?

My parents, who are in their late 60's loved Bill Clinton. My dad because his portfolio did well in the 90's and he doesn't give a shit about adultery. I think he has cheated on my mother.

I don't think they would vote for a black man. When I told them I voted for Obama was father didn't want to talk to me on the phone.

Also, I heard an interview on NPR from some diner in Bloomer Wisconsin that makes great pies. All of the diners in this small northern Wisconsin town were voting for Hilary. One guy said the "black boy" gives good speeches but he wouldn't vote for him.

Wisconsin is a pretty white state, except Milwaukee. Also, this isn't a caucus like Iowa where many white voters perhaps felt obligated to vote for the black candidate because they were surrounded by others.

Look to cities like Appleton, Green Bay, Lacrosse, Oshkosh, Sheboygan, Janesville, Eau Claire, Superior, Wausau, Stevens Point. My sense is that Hilary may do much better than Obama in these areas.

The greatness of America is about how we TREAT our poorest and weakest.

Do we treat them as human beings and offer them the help they need to make themselves better, if they want to (recognizing that not everyone will accept help), or do we simply have a 'not my problem' attitude? Because lately I've seen way too much of the latter.

If you want, I can accept that the crackhead and the bum are adults, making adult choices. But the truly poorest and weakest in America are children who are living on the street (and there are some.) Do we really want them to be seen as the measure of America? Because to many people, they are.

Tell you what, Barack: Why don't you start by fixing the easy technical stuff, like the AMT or the Democratic Party nominating process. Once you've done that, you can work your way up to my soul by easy stages.

Do we treat them as human beings and offer them the help they need to make themselves better, if they want to (recognizing that not everyone will accept help), or do we simply have a 'not my problem' attitude? Because lately I've seen way too much of the latter.

Yes, we do. We spend money through government largess, we (Me personally) donate to food banks, women's shelters, spend time in long term care facility with those who have no family. Helping the poorest and weakest is what CHARITIES are for. I don't need to have the Government or St. Obama and his handmaiden Michelle, preaching at me.

I have been 'mostly' proud of America during my lifetime and I resent the holy bejebus out of some twit like Michelle and Obama trying to lay a guilt trip on me.

And..to answer the other question. I did make the mistake of voting for Bush in 2000 because once again, like now, we were choosing between the lesser of two evils instead of a capable CEO for the country. Bush v Gore. What a freaking joke.

Won't get fooled again. We don't need a pastor in chief, a cheerleader for my soul or a nanny to wipe my butt. We need someone who understands economics, is able to deal effectively with other world leaders and who knows when to keep his grubby hands out of my pockets and out of my life.

As I said, I'm not voting for McCain and would have to gnaw off my arm before I voted for either Hillary or Obama.

I think you are misreading what she said. She said she is for the first time proud of America BECAUSE hope is making a comeback.

You claim that 'hopeful' things have happened here recently. Name some. Because I've seen a gradual but persistent decline (recently accelerated) in which the standard of living, acheivement and all the good things that America has represented in past decades are being eroded. More and more people are losing their jobs, their homes, their health insurance. Our national debt is of horrific proportions and New Orleans has never been rebuilt because so much of the money that was supposed to do the job is sitting there tied up by red tape. Meanwhile, fewer and fewer families can afford college, crime rates, especially among juveniles are starting to rise again and teen pregnancies are also going back up after years of decline. What is 'hopeful' about that? I don't see it.

There are many reasons why we can be proud of America, but even when for example we celebrate a great scientific acheivement or military victory, this does nothing about the state of ordinary people living real lives. As such, this kind of pride is fleeting, at best.

Obama is offering plans like his health care plan that will give everyone an opportunity to purchase health coverage at a price they can afford, or his service plan that will make college affordable for people who now can't pay for it.

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/273113--------------"We should be in a position in 2008 where our children … should be able to imagine any kind of future for themselves… and know they have the resources of an entire country behind them. That's what I want for my kids. We're not there yet."

She said her father was a hard worker who never complained. "Most folks are like my dad. They don't want much." What they do want, she said, is to know that if they work hard they will have something to show for it, that they won't go bankrupt if they get sick and, that "after a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice they can retire with some respect and dignity."

"I do want people to know that when they look at me they don't see the next First Lady. They see what an investment in public education can look like."

Obama is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School.-----------------(Why do some conservatives hate good ol' fashion meritocracy so much?)

Maguro said..."I'm sure some of the conservative fanboys will be upset, but Althouse always was a liberal."

I don't think any of us were ever under illusions to the contrary. People like who they like, political views notwithstanding. I liked her before, and still do; ideology don't have nothing to do with it.

Ann, not to be disrespectful, but the scriptures are referring to personal decisions. People act upon those on an individual level and chose to submit to be charitable, to sacrifice for others. It can't be forced.

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

These are choices and moral decisions we all must make and reconcile with our own consciences. They are not for the government to TELL us what we can/should/must do for our souls.

What ever happened to separation of church and state? Is it ok to fudge the line and have Michelle and Obama preaching the gospel at us because you are enthralled with the Church of Obama. People were appalled (me too actually) with the religiosity of Bush's campaign. Suddenly it is hunky dory?

Because I've seen a gradual but persistent decline (recently accelerated) in which the standard of living, acheivement and all the good things that America has represented in past decades are being eroded.

Nonsense. I have more computer power on my desk in this entry-level laptop than all of Bell Labs had in 1960.

The thing about morality is that there's no limit on the obligations you have to the other guy.

Your obligations can always exceed your willingness to meet them.

This is a moral terror to liberals, and their every motive is aimed at reducing the moral risk to themselves personally, by making sure nobody appeals to them personally.

There's always a government program to shield them from obligation.

Whereas the right tends to like private charity, finds it uplifting. And sometimes they fail to meet some further obligation. They find out they have limits, at one point or another, as everybody finds out except liberals.

I don't want to take anything away from Wisconsin gays. When I was very young (in high school) I knew a famous gay judge in Madison who has since passed away and a famous attorney in Madison who is very much alive. Both of them were very professional and smart and made lots of money. Unfortunately, they didn't hit the third and most important leg of the gay stool (similar to the republican stool). They were not attractive.

Rush today, I think in the 2nd hour?, related that Hillary had put her arm around a student who couldn't pay off her student loans, on stage, and how horrible that was, Hillary said.

And Rush had the office find that student and paid off all her loans, provided she keeps her GPA up.

Rush said he was reluctant to tell the story, because it would seem like he's trying to make himself look good, but it was important to show that there's a difference between talk and action; the Clintons are rich too, remember.

This is always a problem with charity (it's built into the contradictory idea of a gift, in fact) ; but my own feeling is that Rush did it to make Clinton look bad, in this case ; not to make himself look good.

Just a poke arising from impatience with the drivel that people are accepting as kindly.

The statement that has everyone up in arms about was said today in Madison, Hot Air has the video(and it was taken about 75 minutes before Althouse took the photos posted here, if I'm reading the time on the photos and video correctly), it's clearly from the same event.

But it's open to interpretation. To be generous to Michelle Obama, you could hear it as, 'she's never been more proud of her nation', rather than that she's never had a moment of pride in being American.

Seems like, that's the way it was heard in the room by a bunch of Madosintes. Maybe Madisonites are so used to feeling negatively towards the vast Red and Purple masses that make up this very un-progressive country and nodded in agreement with Michelle Obama's assessment that nothing this country has done these past 2-3 decades is worth feeling prideful about. Or maybe it was just one line in a long appearance that doesn't really reflect the mood or message she was trying to convey.

Obama is selling hope (husband and wife), but part of that sale is the suggestion that before Obama we had, and have, hopelessness, and that if we deign not to choose Him, hopelessness will reign ever more.

Must feel strange to have been at an event and to see it so differently from how it's being consumed by the wider world. YouTube focuses attention on to moments, when you are in the room you get the entire mood and flow.

Politicians have to master both the moment, and the flow, or else they'll get derailed. Add to that they can't just play to the room, but have to be aware that someone from the opposition is watching every where they go, so if you pander too much to a narrow viewpoint, you'll lessen your broader appeal.

Just ask Gov. Howard Dean, or Sen. George Allen, how much they love the YouTube-ification of politics.

Eli said:"New Orleans has never been rebuilt because so much of the money that was supposed to do the job is sitting there tied up by red tape."

Pop quiz: if the problem is government red tape, the logical solution is (a) more government or (b) less government?

I'm interested in your take on something George Will said on Steph's show last Sunday, which is that the worst-case scenario for the Democrats is that Hillary loses Wisconsin narrowly, wins Texas, and thereafter starts winning primaries again, such that going into the convention, Obama has a razor-thin popular vote majority but Hillary is gaining with momentum on her side. That lets her say, a la Vince Lombardi, she never lost, she just ran out of time, and then the situation with the superdelegates becomes unbearably complex, and guarantees a royal rumble of a convention. What's your take?

After wasting two minutes, I decided to cut my losses, deciding that I don't care why she'd vote for Obama. Instead, I'm going to assume it's just consistent with her past behavior: preparing to ask McCain lightweight questions, going to a political confab and realizing she was a lightweight, and so on.

If she's serious about voting for Obama, she might want to try to consider something Obama took part in. Since she's a law professor she might have issues with someone who'd march in support of illegal activity at an event organized by those with links to a foreign government.

MSNBC is saying some polls are showing Hillary ahead 49% to Obama 43% in Wisconsin. They also said that Obama's people are doing the "lowering expectations maneuver" in anticipation of a less that predicted showing. What happens if Wisconsin goes for Hillary? Reverses the momentum in Texas and Ohio and takes it the rest of the way could happen. All of a sudden Wisconsin is potentially pivotal.

Frankly, because America has been slowly declining in many of these facets for decades. It just has (as I noted accelerated) recently.

I mean, I want to see progress on teen pregnancies but when it is made, that is only a small picture of the whole. Even then, there were forty million people without health insurance and many millions of people who couldn't afford college or retirement, and gas prices of over a dollar, and in summer even a dollar and a half a gallon were making it difficult for a lot of people. It's just gotten worse faster the past few years.

No pride in America--until her husband's candidacy? (From which she will personally benefit, of course?)

That statement will not play well. It is, however, unsurprising, if you take into account other things, like the church they belong to where the minister preaches from the gospel of perpetual racial resentment and animus.

She said she is for the first time proud of America BECAUSE hope is making a comeback. You claim that 'hopeful' things have happened here recently.

Correction. She said "first time in her adult life". She's been an adult since 1982. What, she was asleep during Reagan's Morning in America? Is she the only Ameican who didn't feel pride and hope when the Berlin Wall came down?

On the day the wall came downThey threw the locks onto the groundAnd with glasses high we raised a cry for freedom had arrived

On the day the wall came downThe Ship of Fools had finally run agroundPromises lit up the night like paper doves in flight - A Great Day for Freedom, Pink Floyd

New Orleans has never been rebuilt because so much of the money that was supposed to do the job is sitting there tied up by red tape.

And the money is tied up by red tape because "The Big Easy" is likely the most corrupt city in the South, with incompetent managers like Nagin and Blanco. We're trying to keep relief money out of corrupt local government's freezer...

but even when for example we celebrate a great scientific acheivement or military victory, this does nothing about the state of ordinary people living real lives.

Big Pharma R&D directly affects the state of ordinary people. The liberation of Iraq directly affects the state of ordinary people, though they don't see it.

As such, this kind of pride is fleeting, at best.

Fleeting like the ways Obama makes people feel when he talks about Hope and Change? Or fleeting like the "goodwill" of the world toward America when we are forced to make a hard call they don't approve of?

XWL said..."But it's open to interpretation. To be generous to Michelle Obama, you could hear it as, 'she's never been more proud of her nation', rather than that she's never had a moment of pride in being American."

I really don't think it's susceptible to that interpretation. Maybe if there wasn't video, but with video, she clearly says what's being reported. Now whether what she actually says is good, bad, defensible, or whatever, I pass no judgment on that, pursuant to my 6:42 PM comment. But it is what she says. Maybe she intended to say something along the lines of what you suggest, but it simply isn't what she actually said.

"Just ask Gov. Howard Dean, or Sen. George Allen, how much they love the YouTube-ification of politics."

I think it's wonderful, so long as it's used to capture and propagate what was actually said. The only problem with YouTube is that it can be used to distort in a very powerful way - you don't have to cleverly chop and splice, you can just do it the way the traditional media do, cut a line out of context and then wrap it in an editorial comment that distorts the intended meaning. But when YouTube is used honestly it's a wonderful tool, and even in the event of foul play, if offers the potential for a wonderful "more speech" remedy within the rubric Ann's advanced before. If someone misleads with a video - on youtube or in the msm - someone else can post the contextualized clip.

The fact that she has EVER (not just today) had any material like that should be the issue. It's not as though this is the first time she has said things that have made Dems I know say "WTF?" Giving McCain that kind of ammo is unbelievably stupid, unless (as others have noted) Obama is running for mayor of Berkeley.

"There are many reasons why we can be proud of America"

Then do please clue in the prospective next First Lady.

"No, I can't think of a better first couple."

And I can't think of a better first couple who can easily be (rightly or wrongly) described to voters as anti-American. Saying such a thing will come back to haunt them. Don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly happy to see the Obamas shoot themselves in the feet. Their Marxist views are enough for me to have never remotely toyed with the idea of voting for him. But if you couple that with what outwardly appears to be anti-Americanism, this guy will go down in flames big time.

Eli Blake said..."I mean, I want to see progress on teen pregnancies...."

Could you define "progress"? I realize this cuts dangerously close to talking about problems with Obama, but just saying "progress" isn't really very helpful. 100% of Americans want to see "progress" in Iraq, but stop five people on the street and you'll get six different opinions about what that means. I assume that you would regard a reduction in teen pregnancies as progress (although I don't take that as a given), but even that's really just a quite abstract goal. Progress is a vector not an arrow, to paraphrase Easterbrook: it has length as well as direction. What does "progress" mean, in your view, so far as teen pregnancy is concerned: what direction are we to go in, how, and how far?

I also heard the remark about finally being proud of her country. So we have elect this witch's husband and make her First Lady to make her proud of America? So sorry. I would rather she just stay home in Chicago and rake in the dollars and decorate her big Rezko-assisted home and write academic screeds in The Nation about how she and hubby could have cured the national malaise under the guidance of Saint Jimmy Carter if only we could have seen the light.She is the typical insulated, whiny leftist, who is going to fix everything once she and her co-president are elected.

Ricpic says: Whoopdedoo, our first affirmative action first family. He's a standard issue leftist mediocrity. She's a standard issue given everything hates everyone who's given it to her mediocrity. But they're black. So mustn't touch. Mustn't say a word. God help our deballed by PC country.

Obama isn't my first choice for President, but Ricpic, you are just a standard issue racist mediocrity. Have you ever accomplished anything at any level in your life remotely on a par with anything Barack or Michelle Obama have accomplished? I doubt that seriously. Whenever the topic of Obama comes up, you start in with comments about him and his wife that have obviously racist connotations. Whether or not Obama will win this thing remains to be seen, but one thing is clear, you are a complete loser.

MadisonMan said..."Why should I worry my beautiful little mind on such a remote possibility? Even if it does happen then, what does talking about it now accomplish?"

I think it's as accurate a prediction as any that's been made during this campaign, and the purpose of thinking about it now is because it's interesting. You might as well say "what does talking about the 2008 election now accomplish? It's months away!"

She is the typical insulated, whiny leftist, who is going to fix everything once she and her co-president are elected.

Go to hell, Michelle.

A charming charter member of the ODS Club, I'm guessing.

I've never heard the second Mrs. McCain give a stump speech, but I assume that she does. I look forward to comparing her speaking style to Michelle's in the months to come. I find that prospect far less depressing than comparing it to Bill Clinton's speaking style.

It seems like the never-ending chorus preaching the "Obama is not substantive" meme is alive and well. Ever since I knew anything in a comparative sense about the two candidates, I have known this to be complete B.S. Perhaps because it's been impossible for me to find a credible argument justifying their perception objectively, I've never gone about constructing the kind of rebuttal that someone so out of touch would require. But luckily, I've seen it on a few threads recently at different web sites.

I wish I had saved the names of the site and likely anonymous/pseudonymous commenters, but hey, it's the blogosphere! Anyways, here is what I've seen. You're welcome to check the facts and let us know how this record shows Hillary to be more "substantive" than Obama, given the respective volumes of their legislative records and focus. Naming monuments and banning flag burning hardly makes one the kind of leader that would be made by someone who leads in making government more ethical and accountable, but that's just my opinion, I suppose. Hillary's supporters are free to let me know why they'd disagree.-----------------------------------

"Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, Iâ€™ll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Hon 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. Oâ€™Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Menâ€™s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Menâ€™s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clintonâ€™s bills are more substantive:

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have itâ€“the facts straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obamaâ€™s, but the list is too substantive, so Iâ€™ll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

Also note the intensity of Obama's accomplishments in the U.S. Senate versus Clinton's. In terms of substance, he's accomplished more in a fraction of the time in his time in the senate than she's accomplished in her much longer tenure.

Somefeller has got to be a ricpic sockpuppet, deployed to prove his own point. You do realize that he took issue with the their leftist ideals, and then noted that doing so would be smeared as racism?

Wrong, Crimso. Ricpic's comments about Michelle Obama being an affirmative action first lady, together with other things he/she/it has said on the topic of Obama make it pretty clear that Ricpic's issue with the Obamas has to do with a lot more than their ideology. Try to come back with something better and less predictable than that response.

Look, if you want to see someone score some anti-Obama points without looking like a racist twerp, read Simon's comments. They are substantive and thoughtful. I don't agree with much of his analysis, but he won't get the tag I'll gladly and rightfully put on Ricpic. (And sorry for name-checking you in this discussion, Simon, but I have no patience for this sort of thing.)

Well, sure. ;) But I don't think that this is "uproar" whatever it is, I don't think it's a sound inference that it must be caused out of approbation for Hillary - I think you're missing what could be on the other side of the see-saw: people's view of Obama.

So my assumption was wrong: Cindy (I looked up her name -- I called her the second Mrs. McCain 'cause I didn't know her name, but knew she was wife #2) hasn't given stump speeches. I wonder if she will.

Please, no one is saying that Obama didn't sponsor a lot of legislation in the Senate, that's not what the "no substance" charge is about.

The point is the pablum he's putting out is just vague enough for everyone to agree with.

Good example from LE Lee:

"We should be in a position in 2008 where our children … should be able to imagine any kind of future for themselves… and know they have the resources of an entire country behind them. That's what I want for my kids. We're not there yet."

Who could disagree with that? But it's how you get from here to there that's controversial. He doesn't explain how he's going do it, let alone how he's going to do it and unite everyone at the same time. That's what's meant by lack of substance.

No. A lot of us were deeply embarassed by the American Exceptionalism bullshit at the time.

And have been proven right since then, of course.

Seriously -- your faith in the schoolboy myths of American democracy would be charming if they weren't so deeply stupid and dangerous.

AMAZING. You think that kind of attitude wins elections?

As to the facts: do you genuinely think America's NOT special? That the Berlin Wall would have come down WITHOUT American leadership? As Poland, the Czeck and Slovak Republics, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia what they think of America.

Is she the only Ameican who didn't feel pride and hope when the Berlin Wall came down?

I don't know if I'd characterize it as pride and hope for me. I'm not really in touch with my feelings (as my wife could tell you), but I recall feeling happiness and relief (as in, it's about time). Hope was there, but long before the Wall came down -- I recall little surprise in its actual demolition, meaning the world was moving in that direction for a long time beforehand.

You say that as though it's a good thing. When do we get the Protection Against Excessive Politician Confiscation Bill? At least executives are ideally involved in providing others jobs that don't depend upon government confiscating the rightfully earned assets of others. Granted that ideal isn't always realized, but when do we get to redistribute Soros' wealth? Hasn't his compensation been excessive?

montana urban legend said..."Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years ... During the first (8) eight years of his elected service [Obama] sponsored over 820 bills."

Notice how this doesn't compare like for like: it compares how many bills Clinton introduced and saw enacted into law with how many bills Obama introduced. So the comparison is false from the outset, and it gets even more tenuous when you consider that Hillary's entire first term was in the minority, whereas Obama has spent half his total time in the Senate in the majority. As you'll imagine, it's much harder to get your bill passed when you're in the minority. So this dataset actually proves nothing.

Again, I'm recused from fights here over whether Obama is a good candidate vel non, but where obviously false arguments are presented - for or against him - I'll point out the holes. "Look into the[m] facts," you pompous ass.

"Ricpic's comments about Michelle Obama being an affirmative action first lady, together with other things he/she/it has said on the topic of Obama make it pretty clear that Ricpic's issue with the Obamas has to do with a lot more than their ideology."

Not based upon the comment in question. I could make my life's work studying every comment ricpic has ever posted, but I've got better things to do.

I'd say the answer is more efficient government, not the bloated Homeland Security Department that we have now. Back during events like the 1989 Loma Prieta quake (a situation I'm somewhat familiar with, having friends and family who were living there then), it didn't take more than a few weeks to get the assistance to the people who needed it.

Further, as USA Today recently showed, the hangup in many, many cases is anti-fraud legislation that has required extraordinary amounts of paperwork (some of which was destroyed for that matter) so people can 'prove' they are who they say they are and need the assistance. It seems to me that this is sort of an ass-backwards approach. Accountability can be achieved and people can get aid faster if we instead give the aid out, follow up on it and aggressively prosecute and send to prison anyone who is found to be defrauding the government.

As to the case you are suggesting, that is one big reason why Al Gore is withholding his endorsement and remaining neutral. If there isn't a clear nominee by the convention, then Howard Dean and Al Gore will sit down in a room with Clinton and Obama and work out a deal. If they can't, then likely a lot of the 'superdelegates' will vote 'uncommitted,' thereby denying either candidate a majority on the first ballot. Then it is anybody's ballgame (with Gore, having done his best to broker a deal, likely the consensus candidate if things have become so bitter by then that supporters of Hillary and Obama each refuse to back the other-- though that is exceedingly unlikely).

fen (9:28):

The people of East Berlin brought down the wall (as happened throughout the rest of the Iron curtain.) It is true that they thought that we had something better and they wanted it but at the time I felt glad that they stood up and got what they wanted (despite the earlier unsuccessful attempts that were made in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 and Poland in 1981.) By 1990-1991, the desires for freedom had become too widespread to supress it all. As for what got things to that point, trade with the east (and with goods flow ideas) began with Nixon, expanded with Carter and continued to expand with Reagan. It's too bad that no one has tried that method with Cuba, North Korea or Iran, with whom we've had a trade embargo for a combined 130 years and failed to create an internal revolution in any of them.

Big Pharma R&D directly affects the state of ordinary people. The liberation of Iraq directly affects the state of ordinary people, though they don't see it.

You mean the Big Pharma R&D (increasingly being done in other countries) that we subsidize while people in every other country in the world pay governmentally negotiated prices for pharmaceuticals that are way less than we pay?

As for Iraq, it's hard to see how wasting a trillion dollars (and counting), four thousand lives and giving the Taliban and al-Qaeda a breather with which to recover in Afghanistan and Pakistan while we were bogged down fighting the few hundred expendable terrorists at a time they've sent to Iraq (accepting, expecting or even planning to lose them in order to keep us otherwise preoccupied) has done a darn thing for America. The bottom line is this: Al-Qaeda and their allies are clearly in a stronger position in Pakistan than it was in 2001. They are in a weaker position in Afghanistan than they were in 2001, but far stronger than they were when we diverted to Iraq in 2003. In 2003 there were only a handful of low level operatives in Iraq, as there are today.

Not based upon the comment in question. I could make my life's work studying every comment ricpic has ever posted, but I've got better things to do.

Ah, the famous "I don't know what I'm talking about, but since you have more facts on your side, you must be obsessed" dodge. A common little diversion one finds on internet comboxes. Sorry, Crimso, I haven't studied every comment Ricpic has made, but several stick out in my mind. If I wanted to spend the effort, I'd spend a minute or two looking up and providing some links, but I'm not that interested in the topic, and if I provided them, you'd come up with some other lame attempt to change the subject. Well, I guess when you can't actually support your positions, you come up with, well, what you've come up with.

"I'm sure some of the conservative fanboys will be upset, but Althouse always was a liberal."

Um, put me down as a fan (I’m beyond “boy”) of the blog & the intellectually-stimulating topics thereon & her general commonsense approach to setting up the discussion, but as Simon said “I don't think any of us were ever under illusions to the contrary.”

Prof A does get surprised & sometimes upset tho when some Liberals think her Conservative & some Conservatives think her Liberal. OK, she is an independent thinker & a “beyondist” as far as political parties are concerned, & we can argue all day long as to who is a Liberal & who a Conservative, but on a scale of one to 10….

I do think that I’m concerned that Prof A. can find something worthy in the Obamessiah campaign & its Seinfeldian ethos which you nail in your 5:53 PM.

And the quote Prof A never heard exists & is a Freudian slip. But since it will not be reported in the MSM, it will not make a sound among the electorate as a whole.

Rhhardin:

You have the, um, clef to Obama’s “thoughtfulness” in your 7:35 PM entry. (pace, rh, it’s only a play on words; I’m not being snotty; you hit the nail on the head here.)

Dust Bunny:

I Think that Prof A was being theatrical in hitting you with the Bible (she didn’t even link it; she repeated the whole thing!) for what she obviously sees as lack of compassion. So saying, I don’t think I’d want to repeat Rachel’s words to my Liberal friends, however, & meet their stereotype of a Conservative.

The funny thing is that most Liberals I know or read about are concerned with the poor as an abstraction rather than somebody they’d want to be near; more concerned with the theory of charity than actual charity.

Eli Blake:

We would be a weak & unproductive country if we did not have enough productive, strong, creative, imaginative, competent, i.e., worthy people who perform the hard work necessary to support both themselves & the less fortunate. And we should, indeed, & without guilt measure our greatness by these worthy people.

I don’t cast aspersions on the poor & the weak, but I sure as hell am glad that there was an opportunity for me to rise up out of the not so well-off to the well-off; & for others to rise up from the very poor to the very rich.

For the Obamas it’s always 1932 or 1893 & the rich get rich & the poor get poorer, whereas in their lifetime the rich got richer & the poor got richer.

I started this post on Word @ about 9 PM & was interrupted by a phone call & so there have been about 100 posts since then, most incorporating my ideas, many in better prose, but I'm so vain that I'll just copy my thoughts in anyway!

Jackie Kennedy was the perfect image of what a First Lady should be but the reality was much different.

I still stand by my contention that Betty Ford was the one who really revolutionized what a first lady is and is not. Before Betty Ford, it was all about tea settings, ballroom gowns and the plastic smile, the stilletto heels and the perfect hairdo to go with all of that. But she was a real woman, with real problems, but at the same time who could be honest about them, and show the true class of really doing something to help thousands of other people, in a very real and tangible way.

Nowadays, it is expected that first ladies have a 'cause.' But much of that is hype-- trying to measure up to what Betty Ford actually was.

"If I wanted to spend the effort, I'd spend a minute or two looking up and providing some links, but I'm not that interested in the topic, and if I provided them, you'd come up with some other lame attempt to change the subject. Well, I guess when you can't actually support your positions, you come up with, well, what you've come up with."

If you want to charge someone with racism, you'd damn well better do so on the basis of something other than noting someone's leftist ideals. Unless, of course, you want to redefine racist as anti-Marxist (as I suspect you do). If David Duke points out to me that the sun rises in the east, it is not racist to maintain that the sun rises in the east.

"some other lame attempt to change the subject"

"other" implies that there was one preceding. Please demonstrate that precedent.

Eli Blake said..."I'd say the answer is more efficient government, not the bloated Homeland Security Department that we have now."

No such thing. Monopoly is inherently inefficient. Government can be optimized, but only within the limits that an enterprise shielded from competition can be.

I do agree with your proposed remedy, though, which is that the focus should be on detection and prosecution - mismanagement should carry stiff fines and outright fraud should carry stuff jail sentences. I love the idea about Gore basically being caucused in at the last minute, by the way, that'd be - as Titus might say - fabulous.

I'm glad you went to hear her speak. Hope you take up future opportunities to hear the candidates themselves, too. As Wisconsin is a vital swing state, the odds are pretty good you'll have the chance. Campaign events like that can be fun and interesting, even when you don't support the candidate. Because my brother is in politics, I've been to dozens of such speeches by candidates for President and I can't think of any that were horrible experiences. Being inside at the Century Plaza Hotel while tens of thousands were protesting outside against Nixon was unforgettable.

Wisconsin can make or break Obama tomorrow, as it has made and broken a good many others. A decisive victory is what he needs, a narrow victory is what he'll get, or so it appears for now.

Your reasons for voting for him are quite similar to my reasons for voting for him should he be the Democratic nominee. (Might change, though, depends on the general election path he follows.)

But didn't I preempt that reply? I mean, at that level of abstraction, we all agree. But as soon as you start to get into specifics, the consensus frays. Is the move to a primarily abstinence only programs "progress"? I thik we'd both say no, but some people would say yes. How about if we eliminated abstinence programs entirely? You might think that was progress, I don't know, but I wouldn't. How about getting funding for abortion authorized by Congress? Bet we won't agree on whether that's progress. It really isn't much of a trick to boost the level of generality to a level where everyone agrees. At a certain level of abstraction, a poll found last year that 64% of Americans think the news is politically biased. But that figure doesn't reflect consensus, it just looks like it from 40,000 feet. Once you start to descend for a landing, the details start to emerge: half that 64% thought it was biased in a conservative direction, and the other half thought it was biased in a liberal direction. There was never consensus, it just looked that way viewed from a high enough altitude. So it is with politics. Past a certain level of abstraction, there's broad bipartisan consensus. the problem is that you can't enact policy at that level of abstraction. Which is why it's problematic when politicians talk as if it is. But now I'm getting back into the neck of the woods I said I was staying out of so, finis.

Maguro, there's nothing wrong with passing (and authoring or co-sponsoring) legislation that isn't controversial. Indeed, one would think that his ability to find so many points of agreement that I'm not aware that many others have in such a short time is a strength. Unless, of course, you think gridlock is valuable. Is the legislation really vague? If the transparency and ethics bills were vague, then please, why not point out what aspects he neglected to "take a stand on" in them? I fail to see how I should assume that they would have been pointless bills, but you're welcome to use evidence to prove my assumption wrong.

Further, the point was a comparison with Clinton. I'm not sure you're in a good position to argue that her 15 bills (3/4 of her six-year record) commemorating monuments and congratulating lacrosse teams were braver stances.

Obama took the highly unpopular position of videotaping confessions in Illinois and brokered it into a position that ultimately passed overwhelmingly. It's erroneous to assume he's wimpy at taking a stand given that fact alone.

Simon, your uncivil remarks are to be expected when you prove yourself incapable of taking the initiative to realize that the difference in the volume of Hillary's versus Obama's legislative records account for the fact that both of them were in office during Democratic majorities - regardless of whether one of them was also in office while her party was in the minority. The fact that Hillary was in office before 2006 doesn't make her smaller and less impressive legislative record from both before and after added together any more noteworthy, assuming people who aren't "pompous ass(es)", but have a brain, can use a Venn diagram.

In any event, you can only proclaim Obama's achievements as less noteworthy if you can say that the bipartisan bills concerning transparency, etc., that passed wouldn't have passed during a Republican majority, which sounds like nonsense to me.

I didn't say that the measure of a society is the poor and weak, but how we TREAT the poor and weak. That ultimately isn't about the poor and weak at all, but about all of us together.

As for opportunity,

I am glad that the Obama college plan will allow people who cannot now afford to college to be able to in exchange for a period of service. Of course those who can pay and don't want to do the service can pony up the tuition and just go, as they do now, but those who can't pay (or who don't want to start their careers saddled by tens of thousands of dollars in student loans) now have a way to get a college education. So I agree with you that opportunity to better onself is a great thing in America, and the Obama college plan does exactly that. ISN'T IT GREAT!?!

Surely no one believes that email is retailing actual facts? It is phony as a $3 bill. If you are stupid enough believe that Obama personally took keyboard or pen in hand and authored 152 separate pieces of legislation in a single year, then Mencken was right: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

IF I thought that abstinence-only worked better than the combination of comprehensive sex education, birth control and family planning that brought down the teen birth rate in the 1990's then I'd be for it. But since clearly it hasn't been working as well I support returning to what we have done more of over the past decade and a half.

"Montana urban legend," my "uncivil" remarks are prompted by your high-handed and condescending attitude in suggesting to a forum you are new to that if only people would take the time to read up on Obama - "like wot you have" I suppose we're to infer - we'd see things your way. Such an attitude can sometimes be justified, but certainly not when posted on the back end of a plainly flawed proof. Of the two primary failures of that proof identified in my comment above, your subsequent comment respectively does nothing at all and not enough to address. Clinton's record of passing legislation while in the minority is at best diminished if not functionally void, as is Obama's, but since a higher fraction of Obama's time has been spent in the majority, we should not be surprised that proportionally he has managed to pass a higher percentage of his introduced bills than has Clinton. And all this assumes, by the way, that volume is a good metric for assessing a legislator, and that regardless of what metric is used to assess legislative competency, the result is relevant to the Presidential election.

It's 2008, and the same tired old conservative solutions of 'tax cut, trickle down and deregulate, tax cut, trickle down and deregulate' that have gotten us into the mess we are in now won't work anymore. Innovative ideas like the Obama college program and his health care proposal that gives everyone the chance to buy affordable insurance while preserving the right not to, are better ideas than the worn out old ideas that have had years to work, and have only made things worse.

Obama isn't my first choice for President, but Ricpic, you are just a standard issue racist mediocrity

No, quite the opposite. Ricpic is rightly criticizing Afirmative Action as a racist institution that promotes people above their competency level because they happen to be the "right" skin color. Not what MLK meant by a colorblind society.

Glad that you know that Obama has a specific College plan. All I ever hear is "change".

Your solutions, as Simon has pointed out to you, always involve government, which is never efficient.

May I suggest that perhaps we don't need people in college who will take up space because the government is paying for them?

May I suggest also that I wish that everybody had a government grant for everything he/she wants. Just who's gonna pay for it? And one unintended consequence of government’s education largesse is that Universities have raised their tuition beyond the cost of living. Can it be that they know that few pay the full freight?

And another unintended consequence of the dole is that we create a dependent class rather than a striving class.

A lot of us were deeply embarassed by the American Exceptionalism bullshit at the time.

Ah yes, American Exceptionalism: the concept that our civilization is superior to that of bolshevik elites who enslave proles to their State, superior to the radical theocrats who stone women to death for having strong opinion, superior to the African despots who use genocide to pad their swiss bank accounts.

I wish I could get inside the mindset of people who draw equivalence between America and the barbarians. I think I'd find shame as the motivator behind all their anti-Americanisms, they're seeking Indulgances for their selfish appetites: please forgive me for partying while the rest of humanity suffers tyranny and oppression in order to feed my materialism, and I'll suck up to you by justifying your envy. Yah I'm an American, but I Believe! in World Peace, so I can't be all bad.

The reason I assumed this speech was given in Madison, was because CSPAN identifies the location as being Madison at the beginning of the clip.

Confusion could arise, since one of the first mentions of the speech has a dateline of Milwaukee, but newspaper (or blog) datelines aren't worth the paper (or pixels) they're printed on (remember the Dowd dateline flap recently?)

But, seems pretty clear, that she said exactly what she was quoted as saying, and she said it in Madison.

Whether or not people there heard it then the way it's playing outside of Madison now is a different story.

As corroborating evidence, here's the timestamp on the photo Althouse uploaded 2068:02:18 16:25:47, ignoring that the year is off by 60 years (which, I really wish you'd fix Prof., all these pictures from the far future are disturbing), the key data is 16:25:47, the time shown in the corner of the CSPAN clip is 16:13 ET. So if Althouse's handy dandy Sony is also on ET, then the pics were taken about 10 minutes after that point in the speech, if her Sony's on Madison time then there's a bigger discrepancy which would allow for the speech and photos to have been taken in different places.

Must be from the time I set the camera to take a picture of myself "in the future" (to prove some point -- I think about the Duke case). I should fix that. But it's a camera, not a clock. The way it is, you know it's wrong. There's some security in that.

middle class guy: Aside from that, I think he is the most realistic. He has his platform and all that, but he knows that he will only be able to accomplish a small portion of it. I beleive he will be able to work with the Legislature in a bi-partisan manner and build bridges. People criticize his liberalism, but very few criticize him personally.

Yet another poor fellow looks into Obama and sees exactly what he wants to see.

Michelle's soul may indeed be broken but mine is not. I don't want a first lady who has never in her adult life once been proud of America. The woman is fixated on race. I have no doubt she will do her utmost as first lady to help blacks. What I wonder is what she will she do to help anyone else. (And I still resent the idea that America's--or my soul--needs fixing. And even if it does I don't think someone whose primary identity is her race can be of much help to anyone else.)

Just listened to the bit you uploaded, and Michelle Obama says the controversial bit starting at about 6:39 into it.

She definitely said what she said in Madison, your own video should be sufficient proof (time stamp or no).

Your video gives more context, it was a piece of a whole narrative about contrasting Clintonian campaign triangulation and spinning to Obamanian 'hope' and 'truth'. The Obama isn't just a candidate, he's a (mostly content free) movement.

Her lack of adult pride still seems shocking, even if it didn't register as a slam of the American experience over the past 25 years to the folks in that theater in Madison.

So if Obama loses to either Clinton, or McCain, does that mean there is no hope for America?

One more thought About Michelle. She's the kind of woman who, if Obama doesn't win the presidency, will denounce the country as racist: "Even in the secrecy of the voting booth we couldn't put aside out history of bigotry long enough to pull the lever for a black man." In the meantime she'll praise to the skies all the precincts who voted 90% or more for Obama as showing "true ethnic pride." When whites equally split their votes between a black and white candidate, they're demontrating a longstanding pattern of racial bigotry. When blacks vote nearly 100% for someone of their own color they're merely showing their ethnic pride.

It's probably a good thing that Obama is going to win the presidency because if he loses his supporters, cheered on by Michelle perhaps, will instigate race riots in every major American city.

Re: Your prediction that Obama will wipe the floor with McCain in any debate. I'm not sure of that. Certainly, though, the image of the debate will be striking: A tall(ish), thin, young black man next to a short (very) old white man. What a stark difference!

with respect to the rise in teen pregnancies, don't you find it irresponsible on the part of the teens considering the easy, cheap and complete availability of birth control? Last time I checked, abortion is still legal.

One would think that if the kiddies can swing a few hundred Benjamins for an iPod, a 20 pack of Trojans shouldn't be a problem.

I think a lot of the 'social ills' have a lot more to do with piss poor individual decisions rather than a lack of how society as a whole treats its poor.

I have reviewed the evidence of the IP addresses and the site meter statistics, andafter careful consideration of her statements about Hillary and her unwavering support of Barak, as well as her preacher’s attitude and her own attitude toward the Jews, it is my conclusion that Michele Obama is actually Cedarford.

So many comments, so little time... Michelle's going to have a hard time seizing the means of production because the multinationals have moved it all to Asia and Mexico. Besides, like Hillary! she was on a corporate board of directors.

I tried explaining why supporting your own ethnic group is not racism when the dominant group considers yours to be inferior, but so many commenters don't get it: Consider that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People means only what it says; the NAACP is not a code name for the National Association for the Subjugation and Repression of Colorless People.

Reagan ended the Cold War because he was in the right place at the right time, when the Soviet Union finally decided to quit bankrupting themselves on spending for the military. The real enders of the Cold War were the governments of Austria and Hungary who opened their common border to Easterners, especially Austria who built temporary housing to receive immigrants. Like sticking a pin in a balloon, the rest of the barrier (like the Berlin Wall) soon became irrelevant.

I'll bite on this one: Obama's long range plan to defeat radical Islam is to quit radicalizing it. In the not-quite-Gandhi quote, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the world toothless and blind. Consider that Hezbollah was insignificant till Israel invaded Lebanon; then resisting the invaders made it grow in power and lethality .

We're not going to hear much from Cindy McCain on the campaign trail because she is an ex-drug addict who stole drugs from the medical charity she established with money from her daddy's Bud distributing franchise.

I tried explaining why supporting your own ethnic group is not racism when the dominant group considers yours to be inferior, but so many commenters don't get it:

Gee, maybe because that us dominant white folk don't really think that black folk really are inferior. I suppose if we still did, we'd still have separate water fountains and Obama wouldn't be the front runner for the Democratic nomination.

I can't reconcile that with the repeated drumbeat against Affirmative Action I read from commenters here.

Maybe that's because some commenters believe in a merit system versus racial quotas. The fact that you believe granting jobs or university admissions based upon someone's race says more about your belief in racial inferiority than my (an other's) belief that anyone can achieve success regardless of skin color.

You know, that whole concept of judging someone by the quality of thier character instead of the color of thier skin?

I'm not going to define "merit" as "stuff that white middle class people are good at," especially not timed multiple-choice tests, with scores proportional to the amount of expensive coaching the taker has received.

I'm not going to define "merit" as "stuff that white middle class people are good at," especially not timed multiple-choice tests, with scores proportional to the amount of expensive coaching the taker has received.

Clearly you have some well established sterotypes so I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Sorry you feel black people can't achieve on their own and white people simply write a check for everything.

"I can't reconcile that with the repeated drumbeat against Affirmative Action I read from commenters here."

Gee ...Maybe it's because people who think that jobs and college enrollment should be based on merit and that people who have different skin colors or eye shapes can be capable and equal.

Only people who believe that one group is inherently less than the other believe that quota systems that discriminate are good. Quotas are just another way to infantilize a group.

In the past, there may have been a place for Affirmative Action as a helping hand to give a "disadvantaged" group a leg up when Blacks were denied access to schools, jobs and were discriminated against as government/public policy. In today's society, there is no need to give preference to one over the other.

If you think that only Caucasian people can be racist, then you have been living under a rock. Racism comes in all colors and stripes. La Raza is a racist group as is the Church that Michelle and Barack attend.

I'm not going to define "merit" as "stuff that white middle class people are good at," especially not timed multiple-choice tests, with scores proportional to the amount of expensive coaching the taker has received.

Good, because that isn't how I define merit either. Merit is can you do the job? Can you do the job better than or as good as the other applicant?

If you are applying for a Firefighter position. Can you lift, carry, fight fires as well as everyone else. Or do you get the job becuase you are a special protected group like a woman.

If you are applying for a job as a financial anaylist it doesn't mean diddly doo squat (that invesment term again) what color or gender you are if you can't perform the necessary analysis and mathematical functions. If men are better at this than women is it discrimination to have more men analyists??? I hardly think so.

Is it your contention that non white middle class people can't be good at standardized testing? How much of a bigot does that make YOU?

If you think that only Caucasian people can be racist, then you have been living under a rock.

Oh no. I know many racist Chinese people. They think Caucasians are inferior -- lazy, unfilial, abandon wives and children at the drop of a hat, don't do as well in school, score worse on standardized tests, etc. etc.

Is Viswanathan Anand the smartest man in the world? If not, why not? Justify your position in 1000 words or fewer.

No. Being able to do "one" thing excessively well does not make a person necessarily the smartest in the world. If that were the case there are many savants out there who can compose music but are unable to tie their shoes who would be the smartest person in the world.

Choosing a chess champion by race or by affirmative action isn't a smart idea either. He got his position based upon merit.

With the "proud of my country" comment it's important to put it in the context of what amounts to some significant emotional abuse that has gone on on the left ever since 2000.

Look at _The Handmaid's Tale_ for starters and how many people thought this was award worthy and speaking of a true threat... the coming theocracy.

Or.. Lessing? thinking that racism is so bad that certainly Obama will be assassinated. And she believes it, because that's the rhetoric.

Think of what those on the left have been forced to say about our country that has so little connection to reality and it's ALL depressing and defeatist. Bush is "shredding" the constitution (though what he's actually done that any worse than any number of Historical precedents, I don't know. He's supposed to have so blatantly broken the law that OF COURSE he should be impeached, somehow, and the fact that he's not been proves just how hopeless it all is.

Someone comes along... imagine this... someone comes along and says, "You don't have to live with this constant emotional abuse."

Yes. PEOPLE CRY at Obama rallies.

Tell someone abused that they don't have to be abused anymore and they *cry*.

Those of us who've been optimistic right along and proud of our country the whole time, those of us who have had *permission* to recognize the greatness of our country and to face each day with HOPE as an ordinary event...

Rhetoric is rhetoric. I'm not sure that there's ever really existed a way to gauge whether it is substantive or not, let alone a way to measure exactly just how substantive it is.

Simon,

I think the bills that Obama's passed are more substantive than Clinton's in that they address the way the government functions - rather than to further a specific policy agenda. And they are primarily bipartisan, which means that they were passed or co-sponsored, etc. with the approval of a member of the same party that you once alleged, and still imply, would have prevented Clinton from passing her bills simply because at that time they were in the majority. I don't think the Democratic majority exerted more pressure on Tom Coburn, etc., etc., etc. to not collaborate on bills with Obama than the Republicans hypothetically exerted on their party's colleagues to somehow NOT collaborate w/Clinton on more substantive bipartisan bills that she could have submitted or co-sponsored when they were in the majority.

And unless Clinton's submitted as many bills as Obama has during the same two years in which he has also been in the Senate, which no one's asserted, then that would matter moreso than what fraction of her total bills passed - seeing as how you're the one saying that she can only pass (and one would therefore assume, bother to submit) substantive legislation only when her party's in the majority. These aren't very strong arguments and you're free to retaliate with "attitudes" that you can't witness firsthand or with language that anyone can, but only at the expense of thinking that attitudes are good substitutes for arguments.